: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:37 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Dally knows the only way the Aussies can challenge the Kiwis is to fill the team with players who could actually play for the numerous South Sea Island countries - at the end of the day that is all that really matters to him is Australia winning everything - how sad it was that an Aussies side full of Polynesians was beating by a Kiwi side full of Polynesians.

good to see youve avoided the term pure.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:40 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote: Discrimination not differentiation is racism - but of course that doesn't suit your arguement or lack of it. Why do you think virtually every 100m Olympic champion has been of afro/carib extraction? do you think it might have something to do with their genes - every serious sports scientist think that is the vital differentiation - does that make them racists too or does it just make you into a poster without any credibility? this was the problem i had with your post. heres the definition of it : http://www.yourdictionary.com/pure adjective pur′er, pur′·est : free from any adulterant; unmixed pure maple syrup free from anything that taints, impairs, infects, etc.; clear pure water or air simple; mere pure luck utter; absolute; sheer pure lunacy free from defects; perfect; faultless free from sin or guilt; blameless virgin or chaste of unmixed stock; purebred restricted to the abstract or theoretical aspects pure physics BIBLE ceremonially undefiled PHONET. articulated without any change in quality and with virtually no movement of the vocal organs; monophthongal (e) is a pure vowel when you combine any of those definitions with a nationality the result isnt good. it appears you are backing off from that description which proves my point it was a very poor choice of words.

Eccleshill Rhino wrote: Discrimination not differentiation is racism - but of course that doesn't suit your arguement or lack of it. Why do you think virtually every 100m Olympic champion has been of afro/carib extraction? do you think it might have something to do with their genes - every serious sports scientist think that is the vital differentiation - does that make them racists too or does it just make you into a poster without any credibility? this was the problem i had with your post. heres the definition of it : http://www.yourdictionary.com/pure adjective pur′er, pur′·est : free from any adulterant; unmixed pure maple syrup free from anything that taints, impairs, infects, etc.; clear pure water or air simple; mere pure luck utter; absolute; sheer pure lunacy free from defects; perfect; faultless free from sin or guilt; blameless virgin or chaste of unmixed stock; purebred restricted to the abstract or theoretical aspects pure physics BIBLE ceremonially undefiled PHONET. articulated without any change in quality and with virtually no movement of the vocal organs; monophthongal (e) is a pure vowel when you combine any of those definitions with a nationality the result isnt good. it appears you are backing off from that description which proves my point it was a very poor choice of words.

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:47 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

good to see youve avoided the term pure.

Just like you have avoided the whole arguement in an attempt to deflect the attention away from you idiotic rantings.

My definition of a pure Australian is as follows - a person whose family through various generations have originated in Australia. That excludes all the first generation players whose parents have emigrated from the various Polynesian islands to Australia.

Is that simple enough for you - I would hate there to be an ambiguity

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:53 pm  

dally messenger wrote: this was the problem i had with your post. heres the definition of it : http://www.yourdictionary.com/pure adjective pur′er, pur′·est : free from any adulterant; unmixed pure maple syrup free from anything that taints, impairs, infects, etc.; clear pure water or air simple; mere pure luck utter; absolute; sheer pure lunacy free from defects; perfect; faultless free from sin or guilt; blameless virgin or chaste of unmixed stock; purebred restricted to the abstract or theoretical aspects pure physics BIBLE ceremonially undefiled PHONET. articulated without any change in quality and with virtually no movement of the vocal organs; monophthongal (e) is a pure vowel when you combine any of those definitions with a nationality the result isnt good. it appears you are backing off from that description which proves my point it was a very poor choice of words. Complete rubbish - all this is a smokescreen an attempt to cover up the rantings of fool

dally messenger wrote: this was the problem i had with your post. heres the definition of it : http://www.yourdictionary.com/pure adjective pur′er, pur′·est : free from any adulterant; unmixed pure maple syrup free from anything that taints, impairs, infects, etc.; clear pure water or air simple; mere pure luck utter; absolute; sheer pure lunacy free from defects; perfect; faultless free from sin or guilt; blameless virgin or chaste of unmixed stock; purebred restricted to the abstract or theoretical aspects pure physics BIBLE ceremonially undefiled PHONET. articulated without any change in quality and with virtually no movement of the vocal organs; monophthongal (e) is a pure vowel when you combine any of those definitions with a nationality the result isnt good. it appears you are backing off from that description which proves my point it was a very poor choice of words. Complete rubbish - all this is a smokescreen an attempt to cover up the rantings of fool

: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:26 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Complete rubbish - all this is a smokescreen an attempt to cover up the rantings of fool

made my point perfectly.

: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:35 pm  

Jamal Idris named in the NRL team of the week

The Herald's team of experts pick the best 13 from round one of the National Rugby League.

1. Billy Slater (Storm)
2. Nathan Merritt (Rabbitohs)
3. Jamal Idris (Bulldogs)
4. Michael Jennings (Panthers)
5. Hazem El Masri (Bulldogs)
6. Greg Inglis (Storm)
7. Chris Sandow (Rabbitohs)
8. Steve Price (Warriors)
9. Nathan Friend (Titans)
10. Adam Blair (Storm)
11. Gareth Ellis (Tigers)
12. Sam Thaiday (Broncos)
13. Paul Gallen (Sharks)

: Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:19 pm  

Ellis had an excellent debut.

: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:27 pm  

dally messenger wrote:

:lol:

made my point perfectly.

You are in a minority of one with that view - let's face it you have been proved once again to post complete rubbish - if it were just me OK but it is not it virtually everyone who reads your diatribe - you do not answer specific points and as so such your posts are simply the ramblings of an idiot who has very little knowledge of RL and even less knowledge of life outside RL

: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:34 pm  

CGD wrote:

Ellis had an excellent debut.

Thats because he is a good player.

Leon Pryce, Sean Long, Jamie Peacock, Rob Burrow, Danny Mcguire etc... would all play well in the NRL.

Players like Mathers, Mason, Edmondson and Sibbit where all crap in Super League its not that they could'nt hack the NRL.

: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:40 pm  

Ashmeister wrote:

Thats because he is a good player.

Leon Pryce, Sean Long, Jamie Peacock, Rob Burrow, Danny Mcguire etc... would all play well in the NRL.

Players like Mathers, Mason, Edmondson and Sibbit where all crap in Super League its not that they could'nt hack the NRL.

I just don't get how they got NRL contracts... of all the players they could take and already produce